Ex Parte Masaki et al. - Page 4



          Appeal No. 2005-0825                                                        
          Application 08/772,259                                                      

          the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the                
          claims on appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm.                                  
          Appellants have indicated that for purposes of this                         
          appeal the claims will all stand or fall together as a single               
          group [brief, page 4].  Consistent with this indication                     
          appellants have made no separate arguments with respect to any of           
          the claims on appeal.  Accordingly, all the claims before us will           
          stand or fall together.  Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325,              
          231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,           
          991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  Therefore, we will consider           
          the rejection against independent claim 4 as representative of              
          all the claims on appeal.                                                   
          In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is                            
          incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to                 
          support the legal conclusion of obviousness.  See In re Fine, 837           
          F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).  In so               
          doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual                         
          determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,           
          17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one               
          having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to           
          modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive           
          at the claimed invention.  Such reason must stem from some                  
                                         -4-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007